The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1887-04-28
Married Women's Contracts.

The case of Aultman, Taylor q Co. VS..
}. n. Rush and Eugcnia j. Rush, in
winch the Supreme Court filed its de-
clslon last Wednesday night, is very i'm
Poftant III Its bearing upon the liabilities
OF married women. The Columbia corrc-
spondencc of the News and Courier gives
the following synopsis of the opinion:
Tho action was founded on two notes
given by defendant and his wife for the
purchase OF steam engine. These notes
were secured by mortgage on tract
OF land belonging to the separate estate
OF the wife, which mortgage was exc
cutcd by the wife, her husband Joining
therein. Two defenccs were put uD.
FIRST, breach Of contract; second, 10
liability on the part Of the wife on the
notes and mortgage, she being mar
RED woman. The master in equity, to
whom the case was referred, reported
that there was no breach of the contract.
In this report the Circuit Judge QIud-
SOM scOncurred. The master also re-
ported the dCiCndant'S wife liable, both
by the terms OF the statute and because
the contract was for the benefit OF her.
separate estate. The Circuit Judge did
not concur IN the last branch Of this see
ond section Of the report, but sustained
the master III the first, holding that the
liability of the wife was fixed by the
mortgage, and he ordered foreclosure.
The Supreme Court says: "IhC main
question III the case is as to the liability
OF the wife on her mortgage, or rather
the Inability OF her separate estate for q
debt contracted by bcr husband, to
which she was party, and to secure
which she executed the mortgage in
question, although the said dobt was not
contracted Tor the benefit of her separate
estate. This brings up sQuarcly the
question whether married woman can
mortgage her separate estate for debt
not contracted for its benefit. = *
The boundary Of the question is the
Constitution and the Act of the Lcgisla-
ture upon the subject Of the rights of
married women" The Court then pro-
ceeds to examine at longth the constitu-
tlonal provisions contained in Article
Ia, Section 8, as follows ''Ihc real and
personal property Of II married woman
hcld at the tlmc of her marriage, or that
winch she may thereafter acquire either
by gilt, grant, inheritance, devise or
oVncrWlSe, shall net be subject to lcyv
ana sale Tor her husbands debts, but
Shal be hold as her separate property
and may be bCqueathcd, devised or
ahonated by her the same as if she were
unmarried" The provisions of law
touching upon this question arc also OK
hauStlYely discussed and tho Court de-
cides that the married woman has not
he right to mortgage her separate estate
for debt not contracted for it's benefit.
The Judgment Of the Supreme Court is
that the Judgment of the CircIlit Court
be reversed and that the case be remand
cd with leave to plaintiff to apply below
for Judgment against tho defendant, J.
n. Rush, for the amount due on the
note. Chief Justice Simpson delivered
the opinion. Justice Mclvcr files dis
senting opinion
The practice of having a wifes sepa-
rate estate mortgaged to secure her hus-
bands debts has been very prevalent in
South Carolina and this decision will
upset it abruptly.
| The best system Of fbOOl<-kCeDinp-RcC